Known in the art, there are Radio Frequency (RF) systems that can advantageously be used for inventory identification purposes. In this case, such RF systems are generally known as Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) systems. RFID is a wireless data collection technology that uses electronic tags for storing data. In the retail industry for example, RFID tags are recognised as a “smart” replacement for bar codes, providing a means to attach identifying information, in the form of electronic data, to a product. RFID tag data capacity is big enough that the tags can have unique individual codes, while current bar codes are limited to a single type code for all instances of a particular product. The uniqueness of RFID tags means that a product may be automatically individually identified as it moves from location to location, finally ending up in the consumer's hands.
Retail systems based on RFID technology have two main values for inventory systems. First, the visibility provided by this technology allows an accurate knowledge on the inventory level by eliminating the discrepancy between inventory record and physical inventory. Second, the RFID technology can prevent or reduce the sources of errors, including misplacement and transaction errors within an inventory system. As such, RFID technologies are desired by retailers to potentially help increase sales, lower labour costs, automate physical inventory counts, improve stockroom logistics and provide efficiencies across the complete retail supply chain.
Paper-thin passive RFID tags can be hidden on inventory or embedded into the packaging. They are also subject to source tagging—the process of embedding RFID circuits into the inventory item or its packaging by the manufacturer.
Unlike bar codes, which must be brought very close to, and within line-of-sight of, a scanner for reading, RFID tags are read when they are within a non-line of sight range of a transmitted radio signal. For low-cost “passive” RFID tags used in retail products, this generally implies a range of a few feet or less to achieve acceptable read rates.
By definition, passive tags require an interrogating signal in order to respond with a transmitted identification code, the limitation being the distance between the tag and the RFID readers. Also, in order for a passive tag to respond to the interrogating signal, the RFID reader must be almost parallel to the tag, otherwise the tag will not be able to respond to the reader. The fact that they can be individually read only when scanned presents an inherent limitation that prevents tags from being individually read in real time, or individually read amongst a plurality of tags in real time. It therefore follows that, because the individually tagged inventory items cannot be read in real time, they cannot be individually identified or tracked in real time, thus dramatically limiting their direct use for this purpose.
Passive RFID tags are also generally designed to be disposed of and not reused after purchase, also normally necessitating that their cost be added to the cost of the item being sold. The practice of leaving the tags on the item beyond the point of sale has also generated concern and protests by some consumer rights groups on the basis that they may ostensibly be used for involuntary, unauthorized tracking of items post-purchase.
For these and a range of technical issues, passive RFID tags have been largely unsuitable for so-called “item-level tracking” in the retail industry. They have been attached at the item-level with limitation for specific uses on shelving systems and grocery carts but not for real-time item-level tracking. They are also being used to track crates, boxes and cartons in some retail applications, where positioning of the tags and movement of packaging is highly controlled, but are not used to individually track the inventory items within them.
Active RFID tags, because they incorporate their own power source and transmitters, which adds cost to the tags, have been hitherto considered too expensive to find practical use in the retail industry. They, however, do provide performance at much greater ranges than passive tags, as well as offering other technical advantages.
Also known in the art, in order to perform surveillance of different items such as retail items, there are Closed Circuit Televisions (CCTVs) and tag-and-alarm systems, better known as Electronic Article Surveillance (EAS) systems. EAS is a technology used to provide an anti-theft alarm as tagged items pass through a highly defined gated area in a store. This alarm is used to alert store personnel that unauthorized removal of items through a specific exit is being attempted. It is noted that EAS systems, as anti-theft systems for exit points, are explicitly not inventory tracking or identification systems.
Today, several types of EAS systems dominate the retail industry. The retailer generally has the option of choosing either Electromagnetic (EM) technology or Radio Frequency (RF) technology, or the combination of EM and RF together. In each case, an EAS tag or label is attached to an inventory item. If the tag is a hard, reusable tag, a detacher is used to remove it when a customer purchases the item it is attached to. If it is a disposable paper tag, in some cases it can be deactivated by swiping it over a pad. If the item has not been deactivated or detached, when it is carried through the gates, the EAS tag triggers an alarm.
It is noted that an EAS system generally reports the unauthorized removal of an inventory item, but does not in itself provide any item-specific inventory information, such as the item's specific identity, or other information related to its removal from inventory. Nor does the system track, report or automatically change the item's inventory status. If the unauthorized removal of the item is not detected by the EAS system, the retailer will not know if the item has left inventory until the next physical inventory count is conducted. Until that time, the retailer does not have reliable information on what is in inventory or not.
Further, EAS systems do not completely eliminate theft due to shoplifting. Shoplifters have found various means to remove EAS tags, interfere with or block EM/RF signals or take advantage of the confusion or employee apathy related to reacting to false alarms. As they evolve they have become more difficult to remove and some features such as “benefit denial” (spillage of ink, for example, if tampered with) have been developed. For these reasons, EAS systems are in broad store-level use for security purposes today because they at least address part of the consumer theft problem (at exit points) and act as a visible deterrent to shoplifters.
Importantly, EAS systems, in fact, do not address the problem of “inventory shrinkage” in broader scope i.e. losses resulting not only from shoplifting, but also those due to employee theft, fraud, spoilage/spillage of stock, or from accounting or inventory counting errors. Generally, losses related to shoplifting account for roughly only 30-40% of overall shrinkage in retail. As such, being focussed almost solely on the shoplifter (and exit points only) component of inventory shrinkage, EAS systems in themselves do not provide a Loss Prevention solution for retailers i.e. reducing the amount of total theft and shrinkage within a business. Loss Prevention therefore continues as an ongoing and very serious imperative for retailers.
For example, known in the art, there is US patent application No. 2005/0258956 which describes a RF identification asset management system and method. The method involves the placing of a RFID tag on a reusable asset, such as a keg or hospital equipment, for tracking and managing such an asset. However, the system described in this patent application, which is not retail-specific, does not provide anti-theft capability. Moreover, such a system does not provide a real-time tracking of the assets.
Also known in the art, there are U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,747,560; 6,952,680; 6,961,709; 6,019,394; 5,995,951 and US patent applications Nos. 2005/0149414; 2005/0258956; 2004/0233042; 2005/0270159, which disclose different RF systems for tracking an asset.
Even if some of the above described methods and systems provide good solutions for “asset management” and yet others for preventing theft, several issues still remain that prevent them from being used for identifying and tracking inventory items. Indeed, none of the above-mentioned patents or patent applications provides a real-time, individual item-level inventory identification and tracking system particularly adapted for the retail industry while providing Loss Prevention, i.e. addressing the broad retail shrinkage issue in totality. Moreover, most of the solutions mentioned above have to be used in highly controlled “cooperative” environments and are thus not well adapted for individual item-level identification and tracking across the complete retail supply chain, including the storefront, which are largely “uncooperative environments”.
Therefore, it would be desirable to provide a system and a method for tracking and managing inventory at the individual item-level in real time while being particularly adapted for the retail industry, and for use in less controllable “uncooperative” environments (such as store-level operations) as well as cooperative environments. Moreover, it would be even more desirable to provide an identification and surveillance device which is reusable in order to lower the costs associated with the use of such an identification and surveillance device.